Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
and with john kerry mentioned the senator from massachusetts as the alternative to susan rice, would he be any better. >> i'm surprised that the president is pushing so hard from here. quite apart from whether she was politicizing events she shouldn't have been, she has a reputation of not being a very good diplomate n that job you have to be able to persuade people to come on your side and apparently she tends to. >> rough edges. >> insult people and she's a little bit abrasive, but, john kerry is also very troubling. his track record over the years, not as a diplomate. he might be very good at going to dinners and so forth, but, you know, for example, in latin america, when he ran for president, he was backed by thomas boardhey a former in nicaragua and, another's involvement in the office in honduras were bringing a friend of chavez back to honduras and that's cost a lot of-- >> and the case for susan rice, she's better than john kerry. (laughter) >> do you think that the president is going to nominate susan rice and do you think if he does that she'll get through? >> i expect yes on both
of the foreign relations committee, and disabled marine veteran john kerry. this is what he said. and i quote here in 1968 i arrived in the non-assigned to first battalion 27th marines have said infantry platoon commander. five months later i was shot and injured in a fire fight. after months of rehabilitation i arrived back home in western new york a disabled veteran. although my friends and family welcome me home, society did not receive me quite as well. while there were certainly tension on the politics of the vietnam war, it was the inaccessibility of my environment that made me feel the least welcome. i returned to a country not ready to receive me as a man who now used a wheelchair. that was the reality of an honors soldier would overcome -- the reality had to overcome until the united states improved laws to protect disabled. it is still a reality in many places overseas, places for a better at disabled citizens will likely travel in the future either for business or pleasure. we must ratify this treaty because protect the disabled and the united states of america and the right thing
to understand this is not anybody's treaty, it's not president obama's treaty, it's not john kerry's treaty, it's not even bob dole's treaty, although he certainly is a person who has been deeply involved. the vote on the treaty is the right thing to do on its merits. i think that it's important to note that every major veterans' group -- madam president, i ask that the list of the veterans' groups in support be included in the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i've not forgotten that 36 republicans signed a letter opposing consideration of any treaty during the lame duck, but there's no reason why we shouldn't have a vote on this. the letter says that they would oppose consideration, but we did have the motion to proceed. some may be worried about passing a treaty in a lame-duck session. the argument has no basis in the constitution or the senate practice. since the 1970's alone the senate has approved treaties during lame-duck sessions a total of 19 times. there's nothing special or different about lame-duck sessions. i'd like to address a few of the m
and president bush and a former congressman steve bartlett and john mccain, john kerry, and dick lugar. take the advice of the disability community here and abroad. if you'll do that, we'll win a resounding victory today. thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, i renew my request now. we've had about four successive democrats speak. there is nobody here from the other side. i put in a quorum call and ask the time be charged to the opponents. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would ask that i be notified after seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, when the senate gives its advice and consent to a treaty, it becomes the sup
candidate, at one point, from hillary clinton to barack obama, from john kerry to john edwards, all of them, they all played for their plan with this simple phrase, "rolling back the bush tax cuts." they've been doing it for eight years. so politically, that's why the president has to draw that line in the sand. >> he draws that line in the sand, but harold ford, what happens when republicans, at least a small number of them, go ahead and raise taxes on the top 2% and then turn to the white house and say, okay. now we'll move. and then they have to talk about how they're going to slash spending in medicare, to save medicare, how they'll have to slash spending in medicaid to save medicaid. their political problem on the other side of this tax debate is so much bigger than the republican problem. they're being too clever by half here. >> both sides have complicated hands. and if the democrats, we achieve what the president and some democrats in the senate are asking for in a narrow way around taxes, you're absolutely right. just as an aside on the bush era, this is the first time we didn't go
. >> john kerry has been very active in this issue. i think it will require a presidential push to convince a few. i think it's important that we move forward with that. just one additional thing. as i mentioned, and as we know, the world is so rapidly changing. the unpredictability of the world is the one thing but i think we would all agree on. look at the world, as i mentioned last night, the first time we convened here and look at it today. what will it be like four years from now darks we don't know. we have no real idea. anyone who predicted the world four years ago would like -- would be like this today, i would like to meet year. -- i would like to meet yuo. we need common principles of international behavior. we have to stick to those principles. all of us, at least during the cold war, we lived in a very predictable world. we did. we knew the divisions and capabilities. we do not know what's going to happen. i don't know what will happen in china. i tell believe that 1.3 billion people are going to be satisfied forever under the present regime in which they live. it seems to me it
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)